I read this aritcle and it seems to do away with the need for god, how is it still possible for a deity ?

Question

here's the articel. read and get back to me. and god's sake, pun totally intended, please read the article. not just answer the question.

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/cover/

Answer 1

another 3D universe a proton distance away....

I thought astrophysicists were smart and didn't do drugs....

Answer 2

is something wrong with that? Is science not allowed to publish something that does away with a divine creation? If we find something that does away with a creator are we supposed to just brush it under the carpet?

Im sorry the scientific community is just saying what they believe. The rule of Non Overlapping Magerisria(NOMA) has not been crossed. Science has found a compelling theory towards a common christain beliefe.

does this prove christianity wrong? no. It is just stating another opinion.

Also, dont forget, this is merely a theory, a weak theory at that. So dont get your panties in a bunch everytime a scientist has a new idea.

Maybe science should stop expressing their ideas so the religios can feel more secure.

Answer 3

I'm sorry. I haven't read the article but I would like to ask you something. If you feel that this article does away with the need for God, then what you think your need for God is was based on what other people have to say. God is a personal God and each person's need for him comes to light in a unique way. What do you think your need for God is based on your own personal experience in life?

Answer 4

Please check when I contend some points in that article:

Quote from Article:-
=========Big Bang Theory=====
"The theory says the universe had a beginning, and that both time and space leaped out of nothingness."
==========================

My comment:
How can anything come out of nothing? Can you prove it through experiment? What kind of fools can accept such theories without a proof? Just because a bunch of high-positioned people accepted the theories, cannot make it true. Truth is truth at all times, and cannot be changed. Scientists should preach us Truth by experiment, and not by WHIMS.

In our experience, we have not seen anything "created" out of "nothingness", we always see some creator behind a computer, behind a watch; why should we deny a creator behind this universe, which is much more complex than our watches or computers?


Quote from article:-
========New Theory========
Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time.

He asked: If we live on a brane that's wafting through multidimensional space, why shouldn't there be other such branes floating around out there? Nothing in the theory ruled out this possibility. And if other branes exist, they could interact. It would be fascinating, Ovrut proposed during his talk, to consider what might happen if they did.

The idea intrigued Steinhardt, a professor at Princeton University who was sitting in the audience. If the interaction between branes was a collision, it would trigger a fantastically powerful reaction, Steinhardt guessed, given the immense amounts of matter and energy in each one. The crash would release so much energy, in fact, that it might be comparable to another energy release he was already quite familiar with: the Big Bang.
=========================

My comments:-
===========
The imagination is great! But, still this is an imagination & a theory which can be overruled by a new theory few years later. I have no doubt on this. May be they are trying to give an answer to "What made the Big Bang go bang?".

We may initially feel that "collision" with some super-dimensional world had made that happen.

Again my question is "What made that collision happen?"

Even to make such theories like "big bang" and "collisions with super-dimensional parallel world", we need an intelligent brain. Why should we deny that there is a "Super-Brain and Super-Control" of God which is beyond our "puny senses"??

Conclusion:-
==========
Doesn't this world need great (infinite) intelligence and great brain to create varities of plants, insects, water species, living beings on land, etc. even on one planet Earth, and there is FOOD already arranged for all varities of living beings on land , water, air,etc from time immeorial.

The thiests attribute this Infinite Intellgience & Infinite Control to God. And God can be realized when the God reveals Himself unto His devotee, and there are several such examples, found in India; but the puffed-up scientists try to use their minds-brains, which are God-given, to deny the existence of God.

Even scientists don't know how their brain or their own digestive system or how the blood flows in their own body, and cannot save themselves from disease; so what reall good can they offer to the people, by trying to deny God?

Answer 5

all these theories has nothing to do in what you believe.religions is not something spiritual only,what i mean that all our life without going to the space are based on logic and science,cell phone,cars,biology etc.which means that god creates every thing based on science.therefore any theory you add if it in space or on earth does not mean that god does not exist,
the question is how come all of these series of evaluation happen without any mistakes that could lead us to death,maybe by god will

Answer 6

Its not empirical at all, especially since no mathematical equation for it has been drawn up, let alone solved. Its just a speculation - philosophy if you will.

Answer 7

I like string theory. Bedtime reading. Thanks for the link :-)

IMO, there never has been a need for god.

Answer 8

It is not proven, just a theory.